> I do think it's important to keep a separate category for celluloid film--rather than create only two groups: 'analog' vs. 'digital.' In that case the unique qualities of emulsion-based film gets buried under a generalized term and I think it is important to think historically as we develop our vocabulary of the changing moving image.

And I wasn't arguing against that point at all. I hope I've been clear that I think specificity is important, and I think dumping stuff into overly broad categories (like 'film' and 'video') is obfuscating rather than illuminating. And if 'film' and 'video' are overly broad, then certainly so too are 'analog' and 'digital'.

PS: digital devices (though not any digital recording technologies I can think of) are not necessarily electronic either. c.f. Babbage's difference engine and analytical engine, and more simply, an abacus.